Thursday, August 29, 2013

Why the British Parliament vetoed Intervention in Syria

In a
stunning rebuke to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, the UK Parliament
has voted against using force in Syria. As a consequence of
this development, should the United States decide to take action against Assad,
it’s highly unlikely that the UK will participate.

Just a few
days ago, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, was pressuring President
Obama for a rapid military response. Today, Cameron has suffered a huge
political defeat. So, why did this happen?

There are a
number of reasons.

First - Iraq

Although
the legacy of Iraq is a major influence in the US intervention debate, in
Britain, this dynamic is even more pronounced. Where US domestic support for
the Iraq war ebbed and flowed, in the UK, the 2003 invasion was deeply
unpopular with the British public from the start. In a
significant sense, the war undercut UK public perceptions of trust in
Government. In an associated sense, UK public confidence in the US Government
also suffered. The flowing impact is clear. Now, facing another substantial
military action, the British people and their representatives were far less certain about
the merits of following the American lead. Reflecting this concern, Members of
Parliament have, in effective terms, tied Cameron’s hands.

Second -
International Law

In Britain,
as indeed in much of Europe, there’s a much greater sympathetic for the notion
of supreme international law. As this relates to today’s events, in simple
terms, many members of the UK government believed that action against Syria
would be illegal without UN authorization or a longer UN deliberation. This
concern also explains why the British Government was so desperate to affirm
that any intervention outside UN authority will, amongst other caveats, be ‘’directed
exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and the minimum judged
necessary for that purpose.’’ In a broader sense, Parliament was
anxious about the diplomatic consequence of being perceived as attached to a
flexibly subjective understanding of international law. Now, by waiting for the
UN inspection process to develop, anti-intervention Parliamentarians believe
they have achieved two key objectives. First, satisfying the UK’s obligations
under international law. Second, re-establishing British credibility under that
same orbit.

Third -
Domestic Politics

The UK’s
opposition party, Labour, are seeking to
use the Syrian crisis to re-build their perceived national security legitimacy
post-Iraq (Tony Blair was a Labour Prime Minister). Even as the Iraq war was
unpopular with the British people, it was also profoundly unpopular with
Labour’s left wing base. Indeed, on the eve of war, Robin Cook, one of Labour’s
highest ranking officials resigned in
protest. Miliband appears to have hoped that by his present strategy, in the
run up to the 2015 UK general election, Labour will finally be able to escape
the political demons of the Iraq war. However, it’s certain that’s he’s
fostered a lasting bad blood with Cameron.

Fourth - US
military leadership

President
Obama might talk about an international effort against Assad, but the British
Government (in holding a vote) and Parliament (in their rejection of
intervention) knew that the US would take the lead in any military action. As
Andrew Exum has noted,
EU military weaknesses mean that European military power is inherently limited
– British MPs know this. Whether regarding logistics or actual attacks, the US
Military will be the instrumental foundation of any action. Recognizing the
increasingly aggressive
tone from Washington, British MPs likely felt that they had the
flexibility to take a step back. Even if, as now appears likely, the UK takes
no action against Assad, by American intervention, the UK Government will
consider their underpinning strategic intent (upholding the red lines) as
having been fulfilled.

Regardless
of the above, today’s events are likely to cause serious repercussions for the
UK-US ‘special relationship’. Now, facing British rejection, Obama may be
forced to return to that oldest and most unpredictable of American
allies. Vive le France.

Late comment however this is not the reason I opposed the interventions in the so called 'Arab Spring'. I will outline my two reasons below being chaos & no good alternative.

Firstly, I opposed them as I saw them leading to chaos. These are countries without a democractic tradition and there is usually not a good outcome when trying to overthrow dictators while hoping that Western-educated liberals can take power. A dictator in many situations is the best alternative for religious freedoms and economic growth. This leads into my next point.

Secondly, I could envision no good alternative. Bluntly speaking, Western educated liberals tend to be able to talk a lot but command no popular mandate or force of arms to enable them to take and keep power. In those countries, Islamists are the one with the regional experience in insurgent warfare and sufficient funding for basic weapons & training. At the time, the chaos after the Libyan intervention was clear. A side point is that the mandate given for the Libyan intervention to pause the fighting e.g. no fly zone & anti artillery turned into becoming the rebel's CAS even when they were attacking populated zones with crude unguided weaponry. I saw no mandate for this and was not willing to support a similar resolution. We are already seeing a massive increased terrorism risk due to British jihadists being trained in Syria. This may have not been the case if we had stayed out completely (no material support) or supported Assad.